6 ms·

> High intake of sweetened beverages was associated with higher risk for most of the studied outcomes, for which positive linear associations were found. In con

by jal278 2y ago

> High intake of sweetened beverages was associated with higher risk for most of the studied outcomes, for which positive linear associations were found. In contrast, a low intake of treats was associated with a higher risk of all the studied outcomes. Not sure what to make of this -- some kind of other latent explanation (e.g. that many of those with the lowest intake of treats were on a diet due to bad health?). From the discussion section: > One aspect to take into consideration is however that there is a social tradition of “fika” in Sweden, where people get together with friends, relatives, or coworkers for coffee and pastries (41). Thus, one could hypothesize that the intake of treats is part of many people's everyday lives without necessarily being related with overall poor dietary or lifestyle patterns, and that it might be a marker of social life.

lolinder 2y ago
Isn't a simple possible explanation that people who are at high risk of (or already diagnosed with) these diseases make up a disproportionate chunk of the lowest sweets consumption bracket, simply because they're the ones who are actively restricting intake on advice from doctors? I'd naively expect most healthy people to fall in the second-to-lowest bracket—they're not actively restricting, but they don't have the pervasive bad habits of the highest consumers.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  This is exactly what happened with the “red wine is good for you” claim
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  That was my first thought as well, but the paper says that after excluding all people with a previous condition, that association remains unchanged. There might be something else, like particular diets, at play.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That would rule out pre-existing conditions but not rule out people who already knew they were high risk for reasons other than a previous diagnosis (such as blood work, family history, etc.).
dylan604 2y ago
Could it be that the type of sugar used in the soft drinks is different than the type of sugar used in baking and where the body processes them differently? Yes, I'm questioning if high fructose corn syrup is worse for the body than table sugar. From everything I've ever seen, that tends to be the case. Or could it be that the non-fructose corn syrup artificial sweeteners are having more of a negative impact as people do not limit their in-take of those beverages since there's "no sugars" or "0 calories"?
- Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
  There is not much evidence that it does any unique harm when you calorie-match it to regular sugar.
  - shlant 2y ago
    yea I think people concern themselves too much with glucose vs fructose vs sucrose etc.
- analog31 2y ago
  There might be a dietary difference, even though it seems superficially like there shouldn't be. This is my summary of the reaction from a chemist who did her master's degree in sugar chemistry: "Complex sugars (sucrose) and starches are broken up into glucose and fructose quite efficiently by enzymes in your digestive tract. Only glucose and fructose are absorbed into the bloodstream." That chemist is my mom. So I'm biased. ;-) The puzzle is whether table sugar and high fructose corn syrup have different dietary effects, and if they do, why. I don't think it's a settled matter.
  - djtango 2y ago
    I'll go one step further. A gram of sugar in an orange is not the same as a gram of sugar in a teaspoon. Medium matters - that sugar in an orange is dissolved in the juice which is locked in the pulp. Who knows what the bioavailability of the sugar is in that messy fibrous orange you partially chewed? I guarantee it'll be less than that pure refined sugar in the spoon. Our "datafication" of nutrition and stuff like calories has led to so much silly pseudoscience. Calories are my biggest pet peeve of BS to take with a grain of salt. Why are we basing our nutrition and diet on the performance of the food in a bomb calorimeter?
zug_zug 2y ago
> that many of those with the lowest intake of treats were on a diet due to bad health I haven't read this study, but any study that isn't complete garbage normally would examine the to groups across all variables (age, gender, weight, health, etc) and deliberately control for any systematic differences between groups.
- tuukkah 2y ago
  You can never control for all variables when humans are involved. (You can only control for variables that your data contains.) EDIT: From the article: "[There's a] need for future research to incorporate more accurate measures, such as urinary sodium excretion, to more precisely assess the impact of sodium intake as a potential confounding factor."

by jal278 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

Isn't a simple possible explanation that people who are at high risk of (or already diagnosed with) these diseases make up a disproportionate chunk of the lowest sweets consumption bracket, simply because they're the ones who are actively restricting intake on advice from doctors? I'd naively expect most healthy people to fall in the second-to-lowest bracket—they're not actively restricting, but they don't have the pervasive bad habits of the highest consumers.

kristjansson 2y ago
This is exactly what happened with the “red wine is good for you” claim
ricardobeat 2y ago
That was my first thought as well, but the paper says that after excluding all people with a previous condition, that association remains unchanged. There might be something else, like particular diets, at play.
- lolinder 2y ago
  That would rule out pre-existing conditions but not rule out people who already knew they were high risk for reasons other than a previous diagnosis (such as blood work, family history, etc.).

dylan604 2y ago

Could it be that the type of sugar used in the soft drinks is different than the type of sugar used in baking and where the body processes them differently? Yes, I'm questioning if high fructose corn syrup is worse for the body than table sugar. From everything I've ever seen, that tends to be the case. Or could it be that the non-fructose corn syrup artificial sweeteners are having more of a negative impact as people do not limit their in-take of those beverages since there's "no sugars" or "0 calories"?

Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
There is not much evidence that it does any unique harm when you calorie-match it to regular sugar.
- shlant 2y ago
  yea I think people concern themselves too much with glucose vs fructose vs sucrose etc.
analog31 2y ago
There might be a dietary difference, even though it seems superficially like there shouldn't be. This is my summary of the reaction from a chemist who did her master's degree in sugar chemistry: "Complex sugars (sucrose) and starches are broken up into glucose and fructose quite efficiently by enzymes in your digestive tract. Only glucose and fructose are absorbed into the bloodstream." That chemist is my mom. So I'm biased. ;-) The puzzle is whether table sugar and high fructose corn syrup have different dietary effects, and if they do, why. I don't think it's a settled matter.
- djtango 2y ago
  I'll go one step further. A gram of sugar in an orange is not the same as a gram of sugar in a teaspoon. Medium matters - that sugar in an orange is dissolved in the juice which is locked in the pulp. Who knows what the bioavailability of the sugar is in that messy fibrous orange you partially chewed? I guarantee it'll be less than that pure refined sugar in the spoon. Our "datafication" of nutrition and stuff like calories has led to so much silly pseudoscience. Calories are my biggest pet peeve of BS to take with a grain of salt. Why are we basing our nutrition and diet on the performance of the food in a bomb calorimeter?

zug_zug 2y ago

> that many of those with the lowest intake of treats were on a diet due to bad health I haven't read this study, but any study that isn't complete garbage normally would examine the to groups across all variables (age, gender, weight, health, etc) and deliberately control for any systematic differences between groups.

tuukkah 2y ago
You can never control for all variables when humans are involved. (You can only control for variables that your data contains.) EDIT: From the article: "[There's a] need for future research to incorporate more accurate measures, such as urinary sodium excretion, to more precisely assess the impact of sodium intake as a potential confounding factor."